An ordinary individual finds a sack of promissory notes, and you might expect him to try to locate the owners of those notes. After all they are the equivalent of cash. But the banker sells the stolen notes with false assignments, insures them, gets them guaranteed with payment proceeds to himself and then settles with the lender for pennies on the dollar. Then the banker sues to collect on the stolen notes and wins. Except in this case the banker created the sack, created the notes, falsified the payee and inflated the amount due. The Banker has successfully stolen the money from the lender and stolen the notes from the lender. Despite 7 years of active litigation the judiciary has still failed to pick up on this scenario. Neil Garfield, http://www.livinglies.me

————————————-

I was responding to an email from a lawyer who was wondering if a grievance could be filed against judges who failed to maintain judicial stability and demeanor. I ended up on a rant, and made it into an article. My conclusion is that a grievance is probably not he right venue, but judges should be a little more curious about what really went on in the mortgage meltdown.

I have been thinking about this sort of thing for a while now. The cases are prejudged not only individually by each judge but also because the judges speak with each other, and feed off of the decisions of other trial judges. Adding to this is the bias shown in Appellate courts.

This amounts to several presumptions against the homeowner, who is a best a pawn and at worst a victim of fraud just like the torrent of lawsuits and settlements have been stated by MBS investors, insurers, CDS counterparties, GSE guarantors, law enforcements and regulatory agencies — all saying the same thing: FRAUD (not breach of contract etc.).

Frustration is rising amongst homeowners and attorneys who represent their clients in a kangaroo court will the rules of pleading and the rules of evidence are turned upside down to give the thief the products of his fraudulent scheme.

First is the assumption behind the question “did you get the loan?” This is a fundamental question but the same judge who asks the borrower that question fails to require the foreclosing party that there WAS a loan from anyone in their paper trail. And the same issue applies to acquisition of loans after some bank with a charter makes the loan and then sells it to a “successor in interest.” The reason for this gross failure of the judiciary though is simply because they have never known a scheme like the one perpetrated by the banks this time.

Starting with that premise, the judiciary considers defenses by homeowners as perhaps technically right but leading to an unjust result— the loss of money by a bank who loaned money and who will now lose money if the homeowners’ defenses are applied. The logic is inexorable — it leads to the inevitable conclusion that the judiciary must put on a show about due process, but we all know that the foreclosure is inevitable. The corollary is that the reason the court dockets are clogged are because even though the loan was received by the borrower the homeowners are perpetrators a vast abuse of there judicial system.

In turn, the courts view foreclosure defense lawyers as something less than “real lawyers” and many judges have lost patience with both pro se litigants and lawyers defending the rights of homeowners. In your case, you were genuinely engrossed in a medical problem bunt the judge went ahead anyway because the judge saw the whole thing as “harmless error.” The foreclosure would, in the end, proceed, no matter what you said or what your clients or experts would proffer as facts in testimony.

The result is inexplicable rulings by trial courts and appellate courts. Underlying their opinions, rulings and orders is the basic premise that the homeowner received a loan. And so your judge called you a liar and refused to continue the case despite your inability to appear due to disability. Is this a case where a letter should be sent to the Judicial Qualification Committee or the Florida bar stating a grievance? Yes, as long as you realize that whoever reviews this is going to be suffering from the same delusion that permeates the rest of hedge judiciary. But it is of course relevant that the judge called you a liar, which goes far beyond the subject case at hand, and amounts to slander as well as prejudgment and bias. Perhaps a letter to the judge describing your reputation in the courts and the damage of having a judge call you a liar would cause the judge to reverse the judge’s opinion of you and apologizing for taking her remarks so far.

But the essential point remains the same. The issue is the unfortunate absence of support for basic pleading practice. Just look at the form pleadings published by the Florida Supreme Court, or look at the complaints filed by banks and credit unions for foreclosure. There is a requirement when you plead to collect on a loan to plead that you made the loan. In actions on a note, the requirement that the plaintiff allege financial injury is right there in the the Florida forms.

The real reason why the court dockets are clogged is because judges insist in ignoring basic pleading practice: the allegation of the existence of a debt owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and/or the allegation that financial injury has been suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the failure of the Defendant/homeowner to make the payments set forth in the note.

The second question is whether the homeowners signed the note. The answer in most cases is yes. So what defenses will ultimately have merit in defending the foreclosure?

Even most foreclosure defense attorneys are far too timid in attacking these delusions maintained by the judiciary. They fear looking foolish and the embarrassment of losing repeatedly. They miss the first attack completely — that no, the homeowner did NOT receive a loan from the foreclosing party or anyone in the he chain in most cases. The problem is that their motion to dismiss does not force this issue. the result is that the existence of a debt wherein the homeowner became a debtor TO THE FORECLOSING PARTY is successfully avoided by the banks, as is the requirement of alleging financial injury.

The effect of this is to prevent the homeowner to enter an answer that denies the loan, denies the acquisition of the loan in any sale, and denies financial injury.

Instead by failing to require the banks to make the allegations that are required by the Supreme Court in its published forms, the homeowner is unfairly is unfairly required to raise the issues in affirmative defenses. The pernicious result of that is that the homeowner is required to prove a negative.

Discovery requests are met with fierce resistance by the banks, who usually run out the clock by the time the motion for summary judgment is heard or the the time that the trial occurs. The homeowner is therefore forced to prove a negative, when the rules require the banks to prove a positive fact that is based upon information that is ONLY accessible by the plaintiff.

The reason why the complaints do not allege the existence of a debt arising from receiving a loan from the foreclosing party or any predecessor in the chain of paper is that there is no such debt. The reason why the foreclosing party does not allege financial injury is (a) that there is no such financial injury and (b) the opening of this issue for discovery would require that all accounts be settled and resolved to determine the balance, if any, owed by the homeowner to anyone.

The reason why lawsuits and regulatory actions allege that the broker- dealer investment banks committed fraud is that they intentionally lied and used the investor money to their own benefit. And the reason as why the investors, agencies, insurers, credit default swap counter parties and government sponsored guarantors are alleging fraud — and stating that the closing papers with the borrowers and the mortgage bonds are “unenforceable obligations” and “defective instruments” is because that is an accurate description.And the reason the banks are settling those cases and facing criminal prosecution is because they know that the paperwork is legally indefensible and unenforceable against borrowers.

By some twisted logic, thousands of judges, tens of thousands of lawyers, and millions of owners who lack the information and understanding of this massive fraud, the fraud at one end of the stick (sale of fraudulent mortgage bonds) is ignored on the the other end of the same stick (foreclosure of fraudulent Foreclosures on fatally defective STOLEN notes and mortgages). There was no debt in most of the cases and closings where documents were signed. There is no loss or financial injury to a party who has never funded the origination or acquisition of a loan.

The only debt ever created in most instances was from the homeowner directly to the pension funds and other investors who were left with no enforceable claim to enforce valid notes and mortgages. The only debt due in all cases is the amount due to the investors. Allowing the banks to enforce the debts on paperwork that is evidence of theft is a failure of the judicial system.

The dockets would be cleared with the questions “why have you not alleged a debt owed to you and financial injury?” This would establish jurisdiction or the lack of it at the outset. Unable to prove the debt, and being required to prove it because they alleged it, the banks would shrink from foreclosure and attempt to resolve the issues through non-judicial means.

@eggsistense
the judges retirement plans are heavily invested in MBS and bank stocks.

and many unions and state employee pension plans (state judges etc.)

examine the new $13 billion dollar DOJ-Chase settlement and notice Kamala Harris, the state AG for California got millions and it will go primarily to CALPERS, which is the big California Public Employees Retirement System. Its one of the world’s largest retirement systems.

The money will be to make up for the low rate of return during the financial crisis years. I believe they like to make a 14% rate of return on the investments. You can go to the site and poke around and in most of the reports you can actually see the lists of MBS that the investments are in.http://www.calpers.ca.gov/

and here is article on what California is going to do with its cut of the 13 billion—-to the pensions!!

RE Federal
So, when you have federal judges making 200-300K per year, their retirement contributions and plans are in the millions—adds up fast.

and they also like those hefty rates of returns—

Blackrock, which had at one time the toxic Maiden Lane MBSs, is heavily involved with managing the federal judges’ retirement plans.

so….you can easily see why a judge would rule against a lowly homeowner-borrower in order to protect the retirement plans. I betcha all the judges and lawyers go grab lunch and even joke about it. They know exactly what they are doing.

You can clearly see the lopsidedness of how much the investors are recovering versus the homeowners. Nobody is lobbying and fighting for us.

And I even think somewhere online are comments by Kamala Harris, the Calfiornia AG, after she finished the National Mortgage Settlement deal (aka 49 state AG settlement)….where she says something like ‘this will preserve the pensions’. So it really was not a settlement to help the homeowner-borrower….it was about protecting and preserving the state pensions….including hers.

Unfortunately the judges are not disclosing any conflict of interest whne we appear before them, since they are invested in MBS and bank stock. It’s easier to not follow the laws and rule against us.

@elexquisitor
how can I find something more definitive on this? did anyone record on their iphone or droid what was said? posted on youtube? is there a name of a person who made the offer on the bounty? need a name….was it a chase employee? was it a chase corporate counsel? were you in attendance?

Bear in mind that JP Morgan Chase Bank NA recently made a public announcement that they would be contributing $7,000,000,000 to members of the American Bar Association and various state bar associations as a bounty to attorneys willing to take on mostly pro se defendants to cull the equity from their homes. That is more than the record-setting tobacco settlement. And that is just one lender.

Also bear in mind that judges are invariably members of the same fraternity. So it is no wonder there is conflict in the ranks of judges, given such temptation of assisting those who share a fraternal bond.

Fortunately there is enough information available on the ‘net that a carefully navigated case can make it through the minefields. The ultimate destination for such cases is the U.S. Supreme Court weighing in on due process to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property as stated in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. From Wikipedia –
Procedural due process

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual’s deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. The article “Some Kind of Hearing” written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights “that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority.” These rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are:

An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Below is a really bad scan of my Deed of Trust From Citi Mortgage. Have a couple of questions that someone may be able to answer. 1. You can clearly see that MERS is the Assignor. Question I thought that was illegal. 2. You see a stamp on there that says Certified True Copy. Actually you cant see the stamp, on here but its on the document all by itself and nothing else. The notary on here is part of the original deed. Question shouldn’t this be notarized I requested a certified copy through a QWR? 3. Can someone tell me how to find out if this loan was securitized? As you can see some the stuff did not scan very well such as the signature.

ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST
MERS SIS # 868-679-6377 MIN: 100052550053155353
Assignor: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Financial Corp., its
successors and assigns
Assignee: CitiMortgage, Inc.
For Valuable Consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Assignor hereby assigns
and transfers the following described Deed of Trust unto. the Assignee:
That certain Deed of Trust executed by James A Smith and Rhonda E Smith, dated
021:2212005 recorded in the land Records of Baltimore County, Maryland in liber: 0021536 Folio: 333 ,
securing a note executed of even date therewith in the original principal amount ot $295,000.00, and
granting a securing interest in the property commonly known as 9411 Lyonswood Drive, Owings Mills,
MO, 21117, which property is more particularly described on: Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
Description/Additional information: See Exhibit A
Original Beneficiary Name: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity
FinanCial Corp. its successors and assigns
Original Beneficiary Address: P.O. Box 2026. Flint, MI, 48501-2026
Current Beneficiary Address: P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI, 4650′-2026
Witness my hand this -:–+-’-::-L……:::.~—
Mortgage Electronic Registr ion Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Financial Corp. its successors
and assigns

STATE OF MISSOURI, ST. CHARLES COUNTY
On 1- Z &-20 t.3 before me, Ihe undersigned, a nolary public in and for said
state. personally appeared Geraldine Ann Belinskl, Vice PreSident of Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Flnilnclal Corp. Its successors and
assigns personally known 10 me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she
executed the same in his/her capacity. and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual, or
the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument

Telephone conference.
They make living people go to court or be arrested, but are willing to give a bank that can hire as many attorneys as they need anywhere in the US territory, a telephone conference toward settlement of a major dispute.

“I have to say,” Rakoff said, “to federal judges who take an oath to apply the law equally to the rich and the poor, this excuse, sometimes labeled the ‘too big to jail excuse,’ is mindboggling in what it says about the department’s disregard of fundamental legal principles.”

Rakoff said the question of whether banks are “too big to jail” is “entirely irrelevant” to whether individual executives should be charged.

Let me start off by saying that there are far more people out there to give info then myself. I was in your shoes 4 years ago knowing nothing about any of this stuff & have slooooowly picked stuff up over the years. That being said I’ll give you my OPINION as a layman.

I think you will need an attorney. Banks really aren’t scared of us because this info is simply complicated & they have deep pockets and bank on us giving up. Even with an attorney there is no guarantees but your chances are far better. I have been at this over 3 years & have not made a payment. My home has still not been sold. I have also went through about 5 different “modifications” before I finally sued because the process didn’t work.

As far as the assignment being void yes this is correct. It is void and not voidable. I would send a Qualified written request to the loan servicer stating these facts. Reference the cutoff date in the PSA and the Glaski v BofA case that allows homeowners to bring up the cut off. Basically, the REMICS were given special tax treatmeants but the loans had to be transferred to the trust prior to the cutoff date. This is per IRS guidelines I believe.

Inquire from the servicer how they claim to service a loan that was received after the trust was closed. I’m sure the PSA will stipulate that loans can/maybe substituted but usually the substitution is done only after there has been a default. These loans that were pooled were rated low risk by the rating agency & they wouldn’t be allowed to transfer in a defaulted high risk loan as it would be adverse interest to the bond holders.

Research as much as you can! Also, Look at all the parties involved in your loan. Check your local place where corporations are required to be registered. In AZ I check the AZ corporation commission and also the Secretary of State. If none are the parties are registered or weren’t then bring this up in your QWR to the servicer. Ask them how can party A who is unlicensed to conduct business in your state be involved in your transaction. Check everyone. MERS, Lender, Trustee, substitue, Etc…Even check if your state has provision for the Trust to be registered.

If you live in a judicial state than kudos to you. You need to start a paper trail & start leaving footprints. You will often catch the parties involved will contradict each other. If you live in a non judicial state than God help you. I speak only for what I am familiar with and AZ courts suck. Google who regulates who in your state and federally. Consumer financial Protection Bureau has been the most helpful in my case. Send out as many letters as possible hoping someone will listen. Honestly, most of the time you are lucky if you even get a response your you get a generic response stating they are looking into your complaint. You just can’t give up.

Also, I would send a Debt Validation letter under your FDCPA rights. Like the blogs state Deny, Deny, Deny. You may want to meet with an Attorney. I would inquire about recording a “corrective deed of trust” stating the provision in the PSA and the assignment being late that the document is void. File a lis pendens which will give notice and have the attorney draft your complaint. Good luck!

Even if there is a copy, there is a promise to pay between two parties.
I made the promise and I tell you I planned to keep it with the entity / entity representative that sat across the table from me.

No they were not dealing with clean hands, they handed me title and let me hand it right back to them thinking it was part of the process as a first time buyer.

But the promise was made.

Where I have issue is if I tell a bookie I will pay him and he dies.
I don’t want the bookie’s relative showing up and shaking me down on an agreement that was for 30 years on my end, if I died I wouldn’t get the home unless it’s paid for, or his end he died and there is no one to give me the title I was promised in the promise to pay.

So the attorney did as attorneys always do. The turnover the truth.

(they have a license to lie, but man cannot save them from the judgement that awaits in disenfranchinsing the creator over some paper created by another man (equal and One).

The truth is whoever has the note with the promise to pay must also tie that promise to the Mortgage or Deed of Trust that contained the terms and conditions on how that note can come into someone else’s possession and how they can enforce it.

I saw substitute trustees taking homes of people who’s deed of trust specifically stated no substitute trustee is allowed to accelerate the note nor foreclose (in so many words).

My deed of trust indicated, only if the trustee was no longer available, the beneficiary could assign another trustee.

Well the trustee was there, the beneficiary went away, and someone who was not a party to the transaction, the offer/acceptance/consideration stepped in, assigned a substitute and took my property under threat, duress, and extreme coercion.

There is no consideration in an agreement to pay under threat, duress, or coercion. Even the law knows a shakedown when it sees one.

If I were a web-wandering psychologist and stumbled upon Matt Weidner’s website headline of late, I think my first impression would be one of calling associates seeking help for this distraught individual. He sounds like he’s on the edge….almost Orwellian:

“If you can leave this country, do so now. As soon as you can.

This county is a terrifying place. Take that from a lawyer who sees, every day, the end product of the judicial system…the last bastion of protection against tyranny, failing us all.

It doesn’t matter that it’s only foreclosure defendants that are being destroyed.

Something far more important has been lost.

The concept of justice and the Rule of Law have been destroyed and decimated.

And soon very ugly things will begin to happen all around us.

Folks, this isn’t a novella Matt’s writing here, it’s a heartfelt plea for us all to understand that the shit really has hit the fan. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is what that wafting – hard to grasp essence has been about for the last couple of years/decades. We are frogs and the pot is bubbling over. Been fun. Will you let go and sleep?

We need to seize the day! Or sit there on your ass. Your choice.REV 2.0

The purpose of the experts anlaysis and investigation is to address and attack the financial fraud that remains elusive and often complex. Federal investigators acknowledge these types of criminal acts are hard to prove and very time-consuming. For this reason many prosecutors shy away from them as not cost effective, given that white-collar sentencing is routinely not worth the investment
These matters concern certain related mortgage backed securities deemed general ledger fraud that only accountants trained in forensic analysis can adequately prosecute. One US Prosecutor for the JP Morgan Chase matter asserts “…[we] welcomed IRS agents and their loads of Byzantine evidence with open arms.” The prosecutors continued , “If we don’t do them, nobody will,” he said in a recent interview.
The typical household litigant and local web page counsel does not have the resources, sophisticated equipment, specially trained investigators, and under standing for national jurisdiction. Therefore the analysis provided by expert , in his investigation and best efforts evaluation, must focus on the most mundane common place and simplest explanation for the court hearing arguments in a complex civil matter.
The alleged violations include Generally Accepted Accounting Principals under GAAP such as FAS 140, codified SFAS 140-3, revised ASC 310,320 380 and Securities and Exchange Commission SEC 1122AB. In such an engagement are certain ledger evaluations based on empirical analysis and to that extent, case law governing trust and securities violations. The arguments are for claims perpetrated by the issuers and holders in a criminal atmosphere of conspiracy , collusion and by a misjoinder of parties.
This examination is intended to examine and uncover all fraudulent business practices and foreclosure procedures that follow a M&A stepped accounting procedure. These tact taken by bankers hidden behind third party originators conclusivly resulted in a windfall of unlawful mergers and acquisitions . The problem is the M&A startegy is a wrongful mixture of homeowners land and title confiscated to collateralize the merger financing. These private placement memorandums are discovery that demonstrates how the registration of equitable shares issued in the name of the homeowner is hidden from view.
The causes of action are obvious upon their discovery and otherwise absent from a lawful recovery. This necessitates an early request for production and preservation issued by the forelcosure vicitim just prior to filing.
Every mortgage was charged off and written down to a nominal value . This cannot be left from the pleading. Foreclosure is a matter of waiting out a certain servicing term “black hole” necessary to allow a vagrant lender attorney to reconstitute value under the FDCPA.
As for the “lost note” , the instrument is obviously lost to a charge off and cannot be admitted into a court of law . The deed or mortgage is the save-all under a bizarre recent acccounting manuever that establihes the yield as a notional value that substitutes out the note
Manipulation of the foreclosures timing is necessary to reconstitute
The title holder is lost to the fee simple estate barring a right of repurchase. Title holders unaware of the right to a REPO contract are left from subrogating and salvage as compared to arguing a conventional foreclosure. The notion of bank FDCPA recapture by secretive reconstitution requires the household to take a closer look at (1) the time payments ceased, (2) timing of the default and (3) years of credit he is due back for payments made during the false and wrongful foreclosure recovery.
Key Essential Formulas:
(Settlement Date – Charge off ) X 2 = Reconstitution
Reconstitution -180 days = IRC 1.1031 Exchange
ABA Wire – Existing Liens = Subordinate Loan (2nd Mtg)
Mortgage – Existing Liens / 5 = Ann Debt Service
Wire + Net Lender Cost= Basis in assets )
This assignment is under a expert witnesses fee based engagement and shall include the foreclosure victims entire request for performing all necessary investigations and quintessential summary analysis. The final auditors report shall be submitted in a form making it eligible as expert testimony and this engagement includes the cost of testifying in New York State Supreme Court.
Respectfully
MASTER SERVICER
Accountanting Expertsregisterclaims@live.com

Have been waiting for an article like this from Neil for a long time. Matt Weidner has been saying similar things recently. Neil’s article above could have been a mere four words: The fix is in. Or as George Carlin said, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”

But still, the question is “Why?” Why is the fix in? Can the judges really be so utterly corrupt–all of them (or so close to all of them that it might as well be all of them)? I understand that the judges want to keep “the system” running as close to the status quo as possible, but beyond that, what do they get out of it? Are they all on the take? Surely a lot of them are. Maybe even most.

I don’t know. But it’s perfectly clear that the law is not being followed, as Neil points out. That much was clear in my own case and in cases of friends I’ve been in contact with all over the country. So what do we do about it?

And Poppy, I love your deposition responses. Banks indeed do not loan money. They take our promissory notes, convert them into “money” (by doing nothing more than depositing the note into an account with our name on it as if that note were cash) and sell that “money” back to us and try to make us feel glad the system deigned to shine on us for one brief moment.

This may not matter, but I’ll share it anyway, just in case. Did a deposition with BOA N.A….the lawyer asked me: do you recognize this? it was a copy of the note. I said: no, it looks familiar, but given it is a copy there is no way to tell if that is my signature.

She then asked me: did you in fact sign a mortgage with BOA.N.A…my response: I attempted too, but found through numerous avenues and paperwork that is not the case.

The next question was: did you sign an agreement/contract with BOA N.A. for a mortgage, no I did not. (it was with Countrywide, which I did not say) and she never asked.

Have you made any payments to BOA N.A. since 2009? No, I have not

Why: I do not have a mortgage with BOA N.A.

Why not? Because National Associations cannot lend money.

So, Ms. Konar are you saying this is not your note with BOA N.A., yes, that is correct.

She then asked: if you should be required to pay the arrears on this note can you…of course I can, but at this time, given I have no mortgage with them, I intend not to, until the court rules on the issue…

Had an attorney, he was pleased with the answers…

I did obtain a settlement with BOA, modest, but they didn’t go to trial with it! I cannot advise anyone here, but I can tell you, deny, deny, deny and if possible dispute the debt. It fashions itself, where they have to provide paperwork and proof of the debt. If you are the Plaintiff you have to prove it. Turns the entire play around.

Many of these lawyers are inept and unqualified to handle this and you do not know who they are in bed with…and it damned well does matter who is asking to be made whole.

This is not legal advice, as I am not a lawyer and do not purport to be…just sharing information.

Such a day. I had a conversation with an attorney who laid it out simply. He said all in all, PSA’s, consideration, misapplied payments, closing fraud….who paid for the loan, where the funds came from….none of that really matters. It is if the bank or whoever has the note. If they have that note, they have what they need. Alteration, forgery…it is still the basic – they have the thing that says you promised to pay and you need to pay it. PERIOD. Who cares if it is a copy…who cares if there really was not a loan. You promised to pay and you are not…
All the issues we speak of on here, they do not matter,that was my take from that conversation.
I feel sick.

I HIRED MR. McCaffrey and prepaid him $875 to perform an audit on my property. Mr. McCaffrey stated he would have the audit completed in a week. It is now 2 1/2 weeks past due and he has failed to respond to my calls and or emails.

He replied briefly one time,

Oct 29

Sean,Just got back in town from a case in Las Vegas We are good to go I know I was waiting for a financial from Wells Fargo that shows WSB LOANS OFF BALANCE SHEET. I will call you tommorow for a follow up and get it shipped out.

William McCaffrey

Managing Partner

HMC (480) 292-7361

I still have not received any audit or response… BEWARE OF THIS ……IT’S VERY SAD THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE STILL TAKING ADVANTAGE OF FORECLOSURE VICTIMS……
I WILL UPDATE IF MR. MCCAFFREY CHOOSES TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND REFUND MY MONIES PAID OR PERFORM AUDIT….

My Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust’s Date of Assignment was September 9, 2011. As you can see below the cutoff date was January 1, 2006. Based on this information Beth says that the document is void. I don’t understand all of this. What does that mean to me? What do I do with this information? Who do I address this with, the Servicer? MERS? the Lender? or the Assignee? Is this enough information that I can negotiate with whomever, without having to hire an attorney?

@ James Smith – here is the info regarding the claimed trust your loan is supposed to be “pooled” in. If the Assignment you have is after the cut off date 1/2006, then you have an argument that your loan is not in the pool. Also it is the depositor, not MERS, that is to assign the loan to the pool.

—————————————————————
|
| sale of mortgage loans
|
|
—————————————————————
U.S. Bank National Association
(Trustee)
(owner of mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity
for the benefit of holders of certificates)

SUMMARY

The following summary provides a brief description of material aspects of the offering and does not contain all of the information that you should consider in making your investment decision. To understand the terms of the offeredcertificates, you should read carefully this entire document and the prospectus.

Issuing Entity……………………………… RASC Series 2006-EMX1 Trust.

Title of the offered certificates…………….. Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1.